Appeal 2007-3548
Application 10/627,947
broad but unreasonable interpretation of this disputed paragraph that the
claim limitation of an acidic pH can be met (Br. 10). Appellants’ position is
not persuasive. As set forth above, Appellants consider a composition
having a pH of 7 as mildly acidic. Gruden describes that the tested waste
streams had a pH ranging from 6.9 to 7.2. Thus, the streams utilized by
Gruden for removing metals had a specific acidic pH within the meaning of
the claimed invention.
Appellants’ criticism of the Reed reference (Br. 11) is not persuasive.
Appellants have not addressed the reasons the Examiner cited the Reed
reference. The Examiner cited the Reed reference for describing the use of
activated carbon in an acidic environment for removing heavy metals from
waste streams solutions. The Examiner reasonably determined that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have found that activated carbon could
have been utilized in acidic environments for removal of metals from waste
streams (Answer 4). This is especially true in the present case where
Appellants consider a pH of 6.9 to be acidic.
Appellants’ arguments (Br.12), regarding the subject matter of claim 3
are not persuasive because they are directed to the inherent characteristics of
benzotriazoles that are described by the cited prior art.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the pH of the dependent claims are
not persuasive. As discussed above, the cited prior art establishes that
activated carbon is suitable for removing heavy metals from wastewater
streams in acidic environments. Appellants’ criticism of the Reed reference
for not providing data below pH 3 is not persuasive. Read discloses that the
activated carbon functions in acidic environments. The pH adsorption edge
described in the figures of Reed does not indicate that activated carbon will
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013